Imagine a situation where the Ministry of Health constantly warns us that jumping high is dangerous for the pancreas or that washing our faces causes skin cancer. We will quickly accept the fact that it was not created and will not be created, and we will begin to disregard even important guidelines, such as avoiding smoking and excessive sun exposure.<\/p>\r\n
What would have happened if the 'National Highway Traffic Safety Authority' had terrorized us that driving at exactly 88 km\/h could tear a tire? Obviously, when the scam was exposed, we would have stopped wearing a seatbelt from that day forward.<\/p>\r\n
And this is what scares me about the processes that are going through the body that is supposed to be the 'watchdog of democracy': the cry of 'wolf, wolf' is not the only reason that the influence of the media today is minimal, to the point of being non-existent.<\/p>\r\n
Other global phenomena, such as social networks, have meant that the common man has a place where he can express his opinion on any issue on the agenda and even attract readers and fans who share his opinion.<\/p>\r\n
\u2022<\/p>\r\n
I personally have no problem with Trump's election as US president. Certainly not with the 30 mandates of the 'Likud' in the last elections. But what would happen if tomorrow morning a truly problematic personality, a truly racist figure, one who wants to commit genocide or an apartheid regime, arose? The media would scream, that's for sure. But who would listen to them?<\/p>\r\n
Is there anything that any media organization in the world can do that it hasn't already done?<\/p>\r\n
After all, we have already emptied all the democratic ammunition on the heads of Bibi, Trump, and Brexit. The magazines are empty right now. Senior figures in the media world have disappeared from the scene for a while.<\/p>\r\n
But that's not what I'm worried about, soon they'll be barking like dogs again. But will they have anything else to say to the world at the moment of truth? What will they tell us about the next Hitler who wants to rule some continent - that he's a racist?<\/p>\r\n
It no longer sounds believable after they tore our eardrums apart crying about the redhead from Manhattan.<\/p>\r\n
\u2022<\/p>\r\n
Not a word here was written with cynicism. I am truly afraid. There will be those who will say: On the contrary, in today's era there is no need for a body called 'media.' People can judge for themselves and present their opinions to the people.<\/p>\r\n
That's true. The people are not stupid. People have the intelligence to distinguish between good and evil. But hey, who among them has the resources necessary to conduct an investigation into heads of state, executives of senior bodies, and various key figures?<\/p>\r\n
Let's assume that the prime minister is truly corrupt and sold out the country's security when he ordered the purchase of unnecessary submarines (I emphasize suppose, because from the way it sounds - this is absolutely not the direction). Is there anyone in the audience who has the time and money to conduct such a comprehensive and complicated investigation?<\/p>\r\n
There are excellent people in the media. They, with the help of the commercial or public entity behind them, can truly safeguard democracy, stand at the gate, ask the right questions, and conduct comprehensive investigations, in order to clarify the existential question for us: Do we really live in a democratic and decent space, or are crooks making money on our backs, and in the worst case, taking over our lives?<\/p>\r\n
The problem is that the media has torn itself apart. Instead of asking questions, it answers. Instead of standing at the gate, it stands at the door of the house of someone it originally did not want to visit. Instead of reflecting with us - the people, on the competence and credibility of heads of state, it establishes facts on the ground, without having any evidence in hand.<\/p>\r\n
Innocent statements like "God forbid, we didn't determine that he\/she is corrupt, we just said that an investigation should be conducted," are insulting to the people. Don't you know 'media' a little better than we do? You understand that a red headline about an investigation of someone tarnishes their good name, when in fact nothing has been proven yet. That's exactly what you're trying to do.<\/p>\r\n
Every headline like that is worth a lot of mandates. A lot. The people are fed up and despise the dogs of democracy who devour grass that is not theirs. So far, it has actually worked well for us. My question is what will happen tomorrow.<\/p>\r\n
So, if someone racist and murderous were to rise up and run for an influential leadership position somewhere in the world, I would prefer that the media not cover it at all. That way, there's a higher chance that he'll fail. Sad and scary.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The media has torn itself apart. Instead of asking questions, it answers \u2022 After they tore our eardrums apart with their cries about the redhead from Manhattan, why should we believe them when a truly dangerous figure arrives?","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[15137,11074],"class_list":["post-326724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-138","tag-15137","tag-11074"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n